President Obama needs to do what he does so well:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

Talk to us.

And by that, I mean really sit down and give us the straight story about his wiretapping decision.

I want him to fully justify his reasons.

If he cannot do any it, then I believe that he will lose much of his broad-based support.

And that includes mine.

I am, right now, very upset about his stand.

Come on, Mr. President...

Please, explain yourself...


We the People are waiting.

[Skittles]

1. lol......Peggy

he did that for the votes

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Whose votes did he do this for?

Not mine.

[Skittles]

10. he talked to get votes

he won't be talking now

[babylonsister]

9. Is he doing this for votes?

Obama team warns U.S. lawmakers: Expect confrontation with Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3820804

[xiamiam]

32. GREAT thread...thanks...been gone all day and missed that one..

Netanyahu is itching for war war and more war...he warned Obama just last week that he(Obama) take care of Iran or Israel will...this is going to be very interesting..about time

[babylonsister]

39. I'm glad someone caught this fun fact!

:thumbsup:

[Cha]

29. Yeah, like Prez Obama hasn't done

anything great since he's been in office.

[babylonsister]

2. Amen, CA Peggy.

I agree wholeheartedly. This is one topic I won't cut him any slack on unless I know why they're taking this stance.

[cliffordu]

38. Me, too, sister.

Me too.

[polichick]

3. I hope you submit this post to whitehouse.gov

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. Thank you.

That was very kind of you...

I just may do it.

[liberalmuse]

5. Agreed.

I'm glad people are coming out with this. I want to hear the truth. I want transparency. I want to know who is responsible for protecting war criminals and for fucking with The Constitution by condoning wiretapping.

[NRaleighLiberal]

7. I agree completely...well said.

[OwnedByFerrets]

8. That would be nice if he would do so.

[blaze]

11. Well said.

And I agree with the suggestion that you post it to whitehouse.gov

[bigwillq]

12. Good post, Peggy.

K and R.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Rec'd

nt

[MarjorieG]

14. Listen to Fineman on KO? Admin would be responsible for a lot of what Bush did; they're outsiders to

CIA, who might be vulnerable and who they need for current efforts on terrorism (he said before that he didn't want the lower level to be lawyered up, which would be expensive, and I don't think would get to those at fault high up); and Fineman also said that they hoped Congress would force this, but Leahy won't proceed without any GOP. Remember Watergate was both parties in support, as well as media.

Also may be protecting new allies, other countries, which could be embarrassing and not helpful.

Something tells me that as upset as this site, Obama feels worse. He values his word and his rep.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

21. How much I hope you're right...

I am just sick over this.

And even if everything you said is true, the decision is still wrong. I know the world is imperfect, and full of shades of gray, but still.

This is over the line.

I am hoping for honest answers.

[WCGreen]

34. I have to agree with you...

There has been a long time since the communications act went into effect and it more than likely can not be unwound without a whole lot of trouble. We really have no idea what he ia doing behind the scene...

[Dr.Phool]

15. He's doing what he does best. Bullshitting us.

I see he learned something from Biden.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. Thank you, everyone, for sending my post to the Greatest Page...

I spoke from the heart, and it is a wonderful thing to have that recognized.

Thank you all!

:grouphug:

[Mira]

17. Kicked in whole hearted support, with a heavy heart, and a need to understand.

This is one issue that I must understand his reasoning on for acting this way.
I simply must.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

19. My heart is heavy too, my dear Mira...

I too want to understand.

I hope he will hear us...

[cali]

18. I agree with you Peggy.

Obama needs to explain this.

[amyrose2712]

20. Agreed! This is the one that is killing me. nt

[emilyg]

22. k/r

[960]

23. Nah, he needs to show me what he's up to with action.

Enough words.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

24. Words first.

Explain, if he can...

Then action.

I hear ya!

[FrenchieCat]

25. I want answers too.

I wrote to the White House asking for an explanation twice. The last time, I sent an article with the letter. I asked if what the DOJ had asked the judge to rule on was so ridiculously absurd on purpose, in order to force the judge's hand to rule against the Administration. :shrug:

Hope it has nothing to do with this being a way of the President staying alive, or some dark deep shit like that.

Anyways....I've written, and now, I'll wait.

[Lionel Mandrake]

26. K & R nt

[JohnnyLib2]

27. Rec.

Nicely put.

[Peacetrain]

28. Need answers

[donheld]

30. Agreed

I want to believe his intentions are good, but can't accept that just by faith.

[NYC_SKP]

31. From your lips, or pen, Peggy.

Recommended!

[empyreanisles]

33. I'm not losing any sleep over this.

But whenever a reporter asks him about this, I'd be curious as to what the answer is.

It would be wise to have some kind of youtube video or summit where he describe what his plans are for wiretapping authority, etc.

My guess is, there is an endgame of sorts here and Obama isn't saying squat until he is ready. This one little court case is simply a distraction and he's not ready to lay down his cards yet.

So my advice? Get a grip and hang on longer.

You are going to drive yourself crazy over these 4 years if you go apeshit over every little story that SEEMS like a betrayal (but in the wider scheme of things, turns out not to be).

[CaliforniaPeggy]

40. I hear you.

But this is hardly any little story.

I think you and I agree that President Obama needs to talk to us. Whenever he's ready.

I have no problem hanging on.

[Two Americas]

43. the law

The idea that the law is sacrosanct and above politics and individuals and policy desires is the underpinning of the legitimacy of the government - the only one.

We had 7 years of an administration breaking the law and bragging about it. Now we have an opposition administration failing to challenge that. This is unprecedented, represents an massive change, and will have far-reaching implications and ramifications. It may be the biggest, most profound and fundamental change in the history of the country.

If the opposition party was not placed into power to restore the law, first and above all, then the election is meaningless. If the government is going to routinely disregard the law, then it has no claim to legitimacy anymore. Though not as sensational and dramatic, this could well be a bigger threat to the country than the Civil War was. At least then even the Confederates, in open rebellion, did not deny the supremacy of the law over the government officials.

The people. as they often have throughout history, decided that the Republicans had gone too far. This has been a check over the years to balance out the excesses of either of the two parties. That is always the first mandate from the people when power changes hands - undo the excesses of the previous administration and restore the law. The stability of the system, and the survival of freedom - the survival of the country itself - depend upon that. Everything else is secondary to that - dwarfed in importance by that.

Shared ethnicity or religion are not what holds the country together. Democracy has been an evolving and often threatened component of the American experimental in self-government. The one and only thing holding the country together is the agreement by the people that the law is supreme, starting with the Declaration of Independence - the authoritative document upon which the legitimacy of all of our laws rest - and the Bill of Rights. Certainly the reality over the years has been at variance with the ideal. And certainly various officials have acted outside of the law. But we have never had an opposition party endorse the previous administration's disregard for the law, and attacked the ideal itself. This radical, and it is new.

If the law can be disregarded for the sake of policy, and that disregard held up overtly as a permanent doctrine, there are no more "checks and balances," there is nothing left but raw power in the hands of the authorities to use as they see fit with no hope of redress or remedy, and the America experiment in self-government and freedom is dead.

"We have bigger fish to fry" we hear. The fish that is being fried - gutted, filleted and fried - is freedom itself.

We have crossed our Rubicon.

The administration has just argued that the law should not restrict the authorities, provided that they can come up with a good enough excuse for breaking the law. Our entire system is based on the premise that the main reason for the law is to restrict the authorities, and to protect the "unalienable rights" of the people.




...

[BostonMa]

35. Sigh. Everybody complaining who didn't get their pony.

[Two Americas]

36. leave them alone

The people on this thread are the most steadfast and passionate supporters and defenders of the president here. I believe they are serious and sincere, and not complaining because they "didn't get their pony." They have a right to express their feelings about this without being ridiculed, and as far as that goes without their opponents gloating, either.


...

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

42. Just knock it off and show some manners

[Number23]

41. I LOVE this. And you are absolutely right

He should do what he does best and often.

Happy to rec!

[mvd]

44. K&R, Peggy

I've put my outrage on hold until it can be explained, since the case has gone on a while and it's being handled by Bush attorneys. If he asserts he can't intervene, there's nothing binding him to not talking about the case. :hi: